Template talk:American Labor Conflicts

proposed additions

What are the criteria for listing a labor struggle in the American Labor Conflicts template?

I have a few suggestions:

Columbine Mine massacre;

the state police were armed, shot about 30, and killed at least 8, the miners had no guns, first coal strike ever to achieve modest gains in Colorado

Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894;

major confrontation, 10,000 deputy marshals became unmanageable, national guard intervened to protect miners and citizens, miners won strike, allowing them to build Western Federation of Miners

Leadville Miners' Strike;

several killed, possibly more than a dozen, miners attacked a mine, was a turning point after which Western Federation of Miners embraced socialism for a decade

Coeur d'Alene, Idaho labor confrontation of 1899

two dead, miners "stole" a train and blew up a major mill complex, miners were rounded up and thrown in bullpens for months

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Richard -- glad to see you here. The working rule of thumb for inclusion here is an armed conflict with at least 8 to 10 casualties. Admittedly that's a judgment call but I hope you'll agreeable that it's reasonable, for a template about armed conflicts, and more-or-less measurable. While there are some obvious problems with the accuracy and completeness of casualty reports, it keeps the list to a manageable size. Your first suggestion, Columbine Colorado, is already on the list. I'll review the others. I'm open to your suggestions anytime. --Lockley (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Coal Creek War

Does the Coal Creek War not count as a "Major Armed Conflicts in American Labor Union History?" If it does, somebody please add a link to this template. I would do it myself but I'm not sure it the Coal Creek War meets the proper criteria for inclusion here.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

$1LENCE, the Coal Creek War doesn't rise to the working definition of 8 to 10 fatalities as described above. Gotta draw the line somewhere. --Lockley (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This "drawn line" (actually, a moving line) is bizarre. Casualties are killed or injured, not just fatalities. If we have to "draw the line" historically and say that anything less than 8 *deaths* doesn't constitute a major labor conflict, it says a lot (and not anything good) about capitalist violence in the US, or a casual ideological need to downplay the role of violence in this history, or both. Doprendek (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

If I had any desire to downplay or conceal the role of violence in US labor history, I wouldn't have established and populated this template to begin with, Doprendek. You think this "doesn't say anything good" about capitalist violence in the US? I'm happy you noticed. The need to draw the line somewhere seems obvious to me. The current criteria of "8 to 10 deaths" is as objective as possible, keeps the template at a workable size, and allows for a reasonable claim of completeness. Move that line to "anybody gets hurt", you blow all that out of the water, and render the template useless and unencyclopedic. I know you don't want that. Lockley (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hilo Massacre

I've removed the Hilo Massacre from the template. As explained above, the criteria for inclusion here is at least 8 to 10 casualties in the incident. Not to take anything away from the importance of that event, Hilo doesn't meet that criteria. Lockley (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There were 50 casualties, as clearly stated in the article. I am returning the reference. Doprendek (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. The critera for inclusion here is at least 8 to 10 fatalities. At Hilo there were 50 injuries and no deaths. If we were to include all labor violence incidents in which people were injured, this template would become both very large and much harder to administer. Lockley (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

in the absense of any further response, I'm removing the Hilo Massacre from the template for the reasons explained above. Lockley (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your criteria were totally arbitrary, possibly invented by you but certainly not subject to any rational discussion, so there was no need for a response. You CHANGED THE DEFINITION of the clearly-defined word "casualties", in a criterion set BY YOU, but implied that *I* had somehow been at fault, in your follow-up statement that you had not been "clear" enough. Of course you were clear. Clearly, your standard is: Any number that will keep out the Hilo Massacre, and very probably many more such atrocities, so as to undercount the level of violence in American labor conflicts (almost all casualties inflicted by employers and the police) in one of the world's leading reference works. 50 people shot! Doprendek (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

US vs American - what's in a name?

Just wondering on a possible name change:
Present: Major armed conflicts in American labor union history
ALT1: Major armed conflicts in United States labor history
ALT2: Major armed conflicts in the labor union history of the United States
--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)